The Shechita Controversy

The "PETA Principle," the moral equating of animals and humans, is an affront to the very essence of Jewish belief.

Now that the blood has settled, a clearer perspective might be had about the recent brouhaha over shechita, or Jewish ritual slaughter, at a meat-processing plant in Iowa.

Yes, the beginning of that sentence was meant to jar. Blood and attendant unpleasantness are part and parcel of the process of turning livestock into meat, and most people are content to interact only with the final product.

Some, though, choose not to do even that. They include people who are repulsed by the thought of eating what was once alive, and others who feel that meat consumption is a wasteful use of natural resources. Yet others shun meat for health or religious reasons.

And then there are the folks at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, who object to all killing of animals because, as Ingrid Newkirk, the group's co-founder and president, famously put it, "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" -- because of their belief, in other words, that animals are no different from humans.

The Jewish religious tradition forbids causing animals unnecessary pain. And there are observant Jews who are vegetarians; our tradition even teaches that the first man and woman -- indeed all of humanity until Noah -- were divinely forbidden to eat meat. But the Jewish faith expressly permits the killing of animals for human needs, including food. Which animals may be eaten and how to dispatch them are topics dealt with at considerable length in Jewish legal literature.

Indeed, the "PETA Principle," the moral equating of animals and humans, is an affront to the very essence of Jewish belief, which exalts the human being, alone among God's creations, as, among other things, the possessor of free will, a being capable of choosing to do good or bad. That distinction is introduced in Genesis, where the first man is commanded to "rule over" the animal world.

The notion that humans are mere animals can lead to ethical obscenities, like PETA's "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign, comparing the killing of chickens and cows to the murder of Jewish men, women and children.

The notion that humans are mere animals can lead to ethical obscenities, like PETA's appeal to the director of the federal penitentiary where Timothy McVeigh was awaiting execution, that the mass murderer not be served meat so that he "not be allowed to take even one more life." Or the group's lodging of a protest with Yasir Arafat over a terrorist attack because the donkey carrying the explosives detonated in the attack was killed. Or its "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign, comparing the killing of chickens and cows to the murder of Jewish men, women and children. Or solemn declarations like Ms. Newkirk's that "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses."

And so when PETA launched a media blitz several weeks ago, sending scores of journalists and others copies of surreptitiously filmed and carefully edited videotapes of animals being slaughtered at the AgriProcessors plant in Postville, Iowa - the largest producer of "glatt" -- or highest-standard -- kosher meat in the nation - the immediate reaction on the part of some Jewish organizations and many of those in the kosher food industry was understandably negative.

The video, to be sure, was disturbing. Although the PETA "mole" who secretly recorded the film likely witnessed thousands of unremarkable slaughters during his months on the job, the edited film showed a number of animals that seemed conscious after the act of shechita. In one case, an animal even righted itself and took several steps before collapsing.

Every method of animal slaughter yields a small percentage of such unfortunate results, when some degree of consciousness persists longer than it should. What PETA claims, though, is that what was depicted on its edited video of operations at the Iowa plant represents fully a quarter of the animals slaughtered over the seven-week period during which the video was made.

There is reason to be skeptical about this claim. A subsequent visit to the plant by Dr. I.M. Levinger, a veterinary surgeon and physiologist, yielded his testimony that, of the as many as 150 animals he saw slaughtered over the course of his two-day visit, only a single cow exhibited any conscious activity after shechita.

What is more, USDA inspectors are typically present on the killing floor during animal slaughter, to ensure that the process complies with federal standards. The inspectors present at the Postville plant during the period PETA compiled the images in its video presumably saw the entire picture, and never complained about any inordinately high number of post-slaughter displays of consciousness. A high-level USDA official, for that matter, visited the plant after PETA released its video to personally observe the allegedly inhumane practices and take appropriate action; what he saw apparently persuaded him that there was no need to shut down the plant or alter its basic practices.

Likewise, top officials from the kashrut organizations that certify AgriProcessors' meat visited the plant to monitor the shechita process and found that signs of post-slaughter consciousness were extremely rare. Indeed, Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture, Patty Judge, who had initially expressed her deep chagrin after watching PETA's video -- even calling for a federal investigation -- concluded, after a personal visit to the plant, that the shechita there "... was humane... and there was absolutely no problem with the way they [the animals] were handled."

Those personal observations confirm what scientific theory would have predicted: that the incidence of displays of post-slaughter consciousness is more rare in cases of shechita than when non-kosher methods of slaughter are employed. That is because, as Dr. S.D. Rosen, MA, MD, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, noted earlier this year in a monograph in the Veterinary Record, studies have shown that after the cutting of the trachea, esophagus and carotid arteries - the shechita process in essence -- an animal's consciousness is lost within approximately two seconds, and irreversibly.

The evidence would appear to suggest, therefore, that PETA is grossly exaggerating the frequency of post-shechita signs of consciousness at the Iowa plant. Perhaps it should not be surprising that PETA's 25% figure differs so dramatically from what others have seen. Because, while the group's concern that animals not be caused unnecessary pain is commendable, PETA also has an ultimate, and openly declared, goal: to stop people from eating meat. And so, if a bit of dissembling is necessary to move in that direction, well... wouldn't you stretch the truth to save Jews from Nazis?

Precision, though, is not the only thing PETA seems prepared to sacrifice in order to achieve its goal. Our nation's commitment to religious liberty, in PETA's eyes, is eminently expendable as well.

Even though the Iowa plant has discontinued a bleeding-facilitating arterial cut that PETA deemed a "dismemberment" of live animals, the animal rights group is now demanding, among other things, that U.S. government regulations regarding animal slaughter be changed in fundamental ways and that the type of restraining pen required by some decisors of Jewish law be outlawed. These are not minor points; they touch, and not gently, upon the issue of rabbinic authority and religious autonomy. And that game is zero-sum: What constitutes proper animal-slaughter methods for observant American Jews will necessarily be determined in the future either by rabbis or by advocates for animal-rights.

Shechita was attacked and outlawed by the Nazis when they came to power in Germany. Today, animal rights activists have succeeded in banning it in several European and Scandinavian countries. If PETA's misleading campaign is not seen for the partisan salvo it is, our own country may be next.

Visitor Comments: 61

"As Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's co-founder and president, famously put it, 'a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.' "

We must ask her what she would say if a dog were to perform her next root canal? Or why, then, isn't a rat the president of PETA. (Oh, wait. That's already an equivalency.)

(59)
Anna,
July 2, 2013 9:39 PM

I have read the comment abiut the Holocaust 6,000,000 and the chickens many times, and it never ceases to madden me. Peta must know that it's a meaningless comparison. Of course we must treat animals decently, and I do. I also donate money and goods to the SPCA. But to equate a chicken's life with that of someone in Auschwitz or Belsen is a gross insult. Or a sign that the person saying it has no idea what they're taking about.

(58)
Tobey,
January 31, 2011 8:09 PM

agriprocessor controversy is not the same as shechita controversy

it appears that there were definite abuses at the agriprocessors plant. if this business and attending kashrus organizations were culpable, that in no way reflects on halachah. it reflects on their own integrity. to try to defend this company's practices or the kashrus organization when there is video footage, etc. etc. using halachah seems absurd. they messed up. it wasn't supposed to be that way, now move on and fix the problem. make a little less money and slow down. send in mashgichim who are working for the klal and HKB"H. it's meat processing and it's a messy, money-making proposition.
-A frum, meat-eating Jew who wishes we'd admit when we made a mistake & try to fix it.
t

(57)
sandra sampey,
September 13, 2008 1:24 PM

in an ideal world

Jews do not approve of such barbaric treatment to animals. That's why there are the laws of kashrut in the first place.

(56)
John R. Quinn,
August 23, 2008 9:08 AM

brutality is brutality

I have visited non-kosher slaughterhouses and the situation is not much better: sentient animals die in terror and agony no matter the religious justification - or lack of it. What bothers me is that the Jews, victims of a remoresless, unfeeling killing machine (the Holocaust) themselves, could so blithely approve of similar, such barbaric treatment of so-called "lesser creatures" simply because they are not human.
God's Chosen People? Prove it!

Susan,
December 1, 2011 6:34 PM

Thanks for missing every single point made - especially the one about the Holocaust!

We DO prove it, by holding people to higher standards. But they are our standard, not made up for us by hypocrites like Ingrid "I'll use pig insulin for me but no one else can" Newkirk, who lie (editing together a hiddentape of months of mishaps in one plant & calling it a "week of abuse"), nirimposed on us by people who obviously don't agree with kashrus or Judaism in the first place.

(55)
John I Henderson,
January 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Thanks

I have enjoyed your comments Please keep me on your mailing list

(54)
Dave,
June 15, 2005 12:00 AM

Knee Jerk Article

What a typical knee jerk response article blaming others for our own failures.

The very fact that the OU suggested changes speaks volumes about their own and Rubishkin's failure to provide kosher food to the Jewish public. No matter what changes take place Aaaron's is off my plate for good.

(53)
Evan Gadol,
February 4, 2005 12:00 AM

Clouding the issue

Tova Saul had it right. The issue here isn't whether we should be vegan or if PETA attracts a large number of foolish, incindiary people. The issue is simple. Weintraub has pointed out that the method of removing the esophagus with a hook so soon after the throat has been cut violates kosher laws. Perhaps we could argue that it is still within the letter of the law, but that is not what we as Jews should be concerned with. If I were only concerned with the letter of the law, I could get away with all sorts of things that are really very inappropriate. The reason for the letter of the law was simple to teach about the spirit of the law. Certain things were prohibited so that we would know that unnecessary pain is antithetical to Jewish practice. This does not mean that we are only required to obey those laws and we have done enough. Jewish law is alive and must grow as the situation demands, and if we find that the previous requirements are not enough any more, we must add to them.

I personally do not like the methods that PETA employs. Most of it is sensational and simply for shock value. However, simply because they have stumbled upon a real problem doesn't mean we can dismiss it along with the rest of their fallacious claims. Defending these practices is simple wrong and unJewish. If something is wrong, we need to change. Fortunately, virtually all of Jewish law has been carefully disected by our sages and is virtually flawless. However, the practice of that law by living individuals is often less than flawless. It is our job not to equate attempts to obey those laws with the laws themselves.

Seldom is there actual true anti-Semetism in our modern society. I am no fool, while looking for articles about the shechting, I found a large number of white Nationalist sites devoting themselves to calling us dirty Jews and various other accolades. However, what PETA is asking from us is not to cease to be or to leave the country. PETA has asked us to live up to our own very strict standards on what Kashrut demands, and I say "Kol hakavod!"

(52)
Vlad Seder,
January 23, 2005 12:00 AM

missed the point

If you think that Rabbi Shafran's opposition to PETA's presentation of the case in question was without merit - you missed the point. Do you really
think that he could consider the instances shown in the video - correct shechita practices? Do you really think
he does not understand what "tza'ar ba'alei chayim" means? Surely, even if
those prctices represent only 1%, they
should be eliminated completely. But the real issue is not correct shechita - the real issue is PETA's attack on Jewish practices and our religious autonomy. Just pay attention: "Today, animal rights activists have succeeded in banning it in several European and Scandinavian countries." (Switzerland is just one of them). Did you hear of any non-Kosher slaughter ban in those coutries? Did they all go vegetarian?
The thing is they DID NOT. PETA's goal
might be to stop people from eating meat, but in reality, for some reason, they are stopping people from eating KOSHER meat only. Doesn't it seem strange to you?

(51)
R. D. Soderstrom,
January 5, 2005 12:00 AM

PETA vs shechita @ AgriProcessors

How often in the course of human history has an organization distorted facts for the purposes of political gain. PETA is an organization long known for their immoral displays of hate against people of differing views. Since this is not the only situation that has come under the critical eye of PETA, I doubt that a claim of anti-semitism is warranted. The statements of Ms Newkirk pertaining to the comparison of vistims of racial cleansing of Jews in Hitler's concentration camps during WWII and broiler chickens is. I encourage all Jews and Christians across the world to resist the claims of this subversive organization and its anto-semitic members and founders!

(50)
Rosa Gildenstern,
January 4, 2005 12:00 AM

From an AgriProcessors Customer

As someone who rarely eats meat and for nearly 30 years has eaten meat only with a reliable hechsher, I was very concerned about this issue. All the information about abuses in treif slaughterhouses has made me very glad that any meat I do buy conforms to the very highest standards of humane shechitah. My trust in this company, which supplies much of the meat I buy, is now shaken to the core. My first loyalty is to the Torah, not to some food processor.

I think Rabbi Shafran's reflexive "A Jew can do no wrong and only antisemites would ever suggest otherwise" response is really irresponsible. The fact is that there have always been butchers who claim their meat is kosher when it turns out, on conscientious inspection, that it is not. Shouldn't rabbis stand up for Hallachah instead of automatically defending a business whose practices are called into question? I find it disturbing that a leading rabbi would attack PETA's motives and past actions before he would give these people a fair hearing.

I just wonder whether PETA presented its findings to the OU or any authoritative and impartial rabbinical body before going public with the information. That would have been the best way to deal with the information. If they did present their findings to the OU, how were they received? Or was Rabbi Shafran it?

(49)
Cory Milbrandt,
January 4, 2005 12:00 AM

The Weinberg Pen used on the kill floor at Agriprocessors is nothing like kill pens used in most kosher plants. An upright restrainer would be much more acceptable.

(48)
Anonymous,
January 2, 2005 12:00 AM

Feel Sorry

When I read many of the comments posted here, all I can do is feel sorry for many of you. Many of the comments shown display ignorance, bad humor, and disregard for Hashem's creatures. It seems that you are calling righteousness what is wrong, and vice-versa. I think I read that in the Torah before. I pray that when we stand before the Judge one day, we can come up with better excuses than those cited here.

(47)
Daniel Martin,
December 31, 2004 12:00 AM

Words without facts

How many of the commenters, either pro or con, have actually been to Agriprocessors and seen for themselves whether the shechita done there is as cruel as PETA claims, or as merciful as Rabbi Shafran and other defenders of the company claim? I know I haven't and probably won't. This is an exchange of allegations by a vicious bunch of human allegators.
Until the early bird stops getting the worm because the PETA activist got there even earlier, I'm not going to tell anyone to stop eating meat. But if you care that the meat you eat was killed in the style that meets your approval -- whatever your preferences may be -- the only way you'll be sure of it is if you go and kill the beast for yourself, or stand by and watch somebody else do it.

(46)
Reuvain Avraham,
December 31, 2004 12:00 AM

SHECHITA

The Rabbi was correct in his Rebuke of PETA. I am tired of various Liberal devils congering up ways to profain Jews while masquerading as sincere social and concerned citizens!
What will we see next? Red paint being tossed upon Jews who purchase Kosher meat at a market that sells it?
Peta even influenced Switzerland to ban
the practice of Shechtia and discourage
kosher practice among it's Jewish population. Any Jew who caters to these social justice groups are no better then aligning with the PLO.
Their influence with in America, has destroyed any and all moral codes and
destroy the Judeo-Christian fabric of which, those who established the colonies for a better way of life.
May Ha Shem reward Peta, according to their deeds!

(45)
Anonymous,
December 30, 2004 12:00 AM

Rabbi shafran "s article was truth I believe

The peta complaint about shechita just proves there lack of understanding why
certain domestic certain animals were put on this earth and the concepts of kosher
and what shechita is about. I will say there has been issues with the shechita process and kosher supervision

(44)
David Bockman,
December 30, 2004 12:00 AM

Gevalt - first PETA, the R' Shafran!

I watched the PETA video at their website. It was not an attack on shechita in general. However, instead of responding to the PETA issue, which was essentially a non-Jewish version of "tza'ar ba'alei chayim" (about which any rabbi SHOULD be concerned), he attacked PETA for what they have done elsewhere.

So, a real question of abusing animals at a particular kosher abbatoir arises, and instead of saying "Gevalt, no shochet should kick a shechted cow in the face with its own blood," R' Shafran attacks PETA?

I read a story of the BESH"T that a non-Jew watched a shochet sharpening his blade on a whetstone, and complained that the meat shechted by this shochet couldn't possibly be kosher. They asked him why, and he said that the old shochet he knew used to wet the blade with his tears. As Jews we are permitted to eat meat, but we needn't lose our compassionate soul in doing so. That is not so difficult a position to hold, is it?

Yes, people do eat meat. Yes, kashrut is extremely important, and much better than non-Jewish slaughter. But there are plenty of other kosher slaughterhouses that don't use the same methods that apparently led to the abuses in the video.

We, as Jews who keep kosher, should worry when we see a video like this one and then send someone to attack the messenger in a "corporate legal defense" manner. Why couldn't R' Safran have admitted that abuse is not what we Jews are about, and yes, we should be glad that someone alerted us to something that we don't approve of?

I'm for kashrut AND against tza'ar ba'alei chayim. I thank PETA (in this case only) for showing us as a community that we're not perfect, yet.

David Bockman
Bergenfield, NJ

(43)
Yehudah Silver,
December 29, 2004 12:00 AM

Phoney Baloney

This is just like the media war with the folks who cry over terrorists etcetera: People will choose to believe what they want to believe. If someone wants to hate jews, then the truth does not matter.
If people were to be aware of what goes on in the typical TRIEF slaughterhouse, they'd all be eating Kosher.
(an article in Time magazine around the time Clinton became president, and his friendship with the guy that runs Tyson chicken, comes to mind. If you can find it, read the sidebar about how they string up the chickens upside-down on a conveyor belt, squaking all the way, insert a probe into their anus, and zap thenm with electricity. Oh, how humane! It kills them instantly! But then why do they need, latter on down the line, a razor blade at neck level "just in case" the volts didn't kill 'em? Either way, this is all unsupervised as compaired to kosher meat being supervised on an animal by animal basis not just a whole big batch of "products" on an assembly line -- yet this is what all the goyim are munching on every day.)
Unless, ultimately, they didn't really give two hoots about the suffering of animals, and what they are eating. Hypocritical Euorpeans? STOP THE PRESSES!
So, if they're going to get all in a hissy about the most humane way to slaughter animals, and not juimp up and down about the treif ones (I'm talking mainstream Europeans, if you'll pardon the oxymoronic phrase "mainstream Europeans", as opposed to PETA, who from time to time do speak of what goes on in the treif ones), then there can clearly be only one goal of banning Shecitah: same one that caused those wonderfull Greeks to ban bris millah. We've got a whole holiday about defeating THOSE condesending jew-haters.
I wonder what sort of celebration we'll have to celebrate the demise of the modern-day anti-semites of PETA? In any event, traditionally, for holidays, we eat meat.

(42)
Ari,
December 29, 2004 12:00 AM

Bottom line today is ...

Mixed up in organizations like this one, as well as environmental organizations, and other various "rights" groups are a WHOLE LOT of Jew-haters.

If you're in one of these high-nose groups, and do not harbor anti-Semitic feelings, you'll have a hell of a time distinguishing yourself.

(41)
Anonymous,
December 29, 2004 12:00 AM

But abortion they support?

If they belived their response to your article, shopuldn't they be worried about abortion? Whatever argument you make for an animal, pain, being alive, etc, certainly applies to a fetus. Argue my point all you want, it is obvious this is tru and it is obvious that the PETA leadership doesn't car eabout life at all.

(40)
Avi Shafran,
December 28, 2004 12:00 AM

THE AUTHOR'S RESPONSE

I thank Mr. Goldsmith for his response to my piece on the AgriProcessors controversy.

The issue of PETA’s core philosophy is not one that I will use this space to discuss further; ample material is available to anyone who wishes to explore in that direction. But I do feel it necessary to note that, contrary to what Mr. Goldsmith writes, PETA’s co-founder and president declared that “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” (Vogue magazine, 1989) not in the context of the sensation of pain but rather as a coda to her contention that "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights.” As she concluded, “They are all mammals.”

And so, with all due respect to Mr. Goldsmith’s assurance that PETA “has never been duplicitous” and “never would exaggerate,” I must remain skeptical as well about PETA’s assertion of a 25% rate of consciousness after shechita at the plant during the period in question. The current rate seems to be something less than 1%.

Mr. Goldsmith asserts that AgriProcessors, like “criminals [who] sometimes act in accordance with the law,” has simply changed its procedures. But the only relevant change instituted in the interim was something that, according to veterinary expert Dr. I. M. Levinger, who recently spent two days observing shechita at AgriProcessors, would have little or no impact on the rate of animals that remain conscious after shechita.

What Mr. Goldsmith characterizes as the “ripping” of animals’ tracheas and esophagi was in fact the manipulation of those neck organs to facilitate a second cut to the carotid arteries – to better bleed the animals, and hence render them unconscious even more quickly. Such manipulation is not required by Jewish law, however, and it is that procedure that has now been discontinued (although a second cut to the carotids is till being done). If the current practices at the plant yield an acceptably miniscule post-shechita consciousness rate, as Dr. Levinger and a host of government and rabbinic officials have testified, there is no reason to believe that a dramatically higher consciousness rate was the product of a procedure designed to stimulate even more rapid bleeding.

The discrepancy between what Mr. Goldsmith claims is shown on PETA’s full videotape and the unanimous testimony regarding the current situation at AgriProcessors is striking. More striking still is the internal tension inherent in Mr. Goldsmith’s response to my article.

On the one hand, he seems to accept the testimony that the procedures currently in place at AgriProcessors are entirely humane, and that only a tiny percentage of animals – well within normal and acceptable bounds – display signs of post-shechita consciousness. But then he goes on to insist that AgriProcessors must make yet additional changes to their procedures.

If shechita as currently practiced is in fact, as Mr. Goldsmith concedes, humane, whence the necessity for further changes?

Mr. Goldsmith asserts that his group is “not asking much” of AgriProcessors or other kosher meat producers. And, at least to an innocent eye, what PETA is in fact demanding of all kosher meat processing facilities sounds innocuous: that such facilities be held to “the widely-accepted regulatory standards for religious slaughter developed by the Food Marketing Institute.”

Those standards, though – which, incidentally, go far beyond what the government has determined to be the requirements of humane slaughter, and were unilaterally compiled without any consultation with kashrut authorities – are not at all “widely accepted.” On the contrary, they have been widely rejected, as they were adjudged by religious authorities many months ago to be incompatible with the ritual requirements of shechita. The incompatibility led fifteen Jewish kashrut experts and organizational heads,
representing the full gamut of the glatt kosher meat producing and consuming community in the United States, to go on written record three-quarters of a year ago informing FMI that its standards “could improperly interfere with

our religious ritual requirements.” And requesting that the standards be modified accordingly.

Which leads to the crux of the issue, my original article’s bottom line: Who will determine how shechita is done in the United States – rabbinic authorities or non-Jewish partisan groups? By petitioning U.S. governmental agencies to impose new rules on Jewish ritual (and despite the fact that no one is pointing to anything objectionable transpiring at AgriProcessors), by pressuring supermarket chains to stop doing business with kosher meat suppliers that are in full compliance with religious and federal law but do not follow the religiously objectionable and legally excessive standards unilaterally promulgated by the FMI, PETA has crossed a dangerous line. And that should alarm anyone committed to religious liberty.
Avi Shafran

(39)
David,
December 28, 2004 12:00 AM

Please Check Facts Before Criticizing

With all due respect to Rabbi Shafran and a number of the people posting comments, please check your facts before criticizing PETA.

Many of the criticisms of PETA found in this article and in some of these posts are addressed on PETA's FAQ page.

No, PETA does NOT believe that humans and animals are equal.

No, PETA does NOT believe that humans and animals are entitled to equal rights.

To those who think that vegetarianism lessens humans, it is very much to the contrary. It is probably one of the most *human* things that we can do. What other of Hashem's creatures has the ability to make such a choice as to how to obtain sustenance. Dogs can be raised vegetarian, but can any one of them make that decision on their own? No. Only humans can choose not use other creatures for food. Far from equating animals with humans, choosing vegetarianism is a powerful assertion of our humanity.

Also, please do not post mocking questions. To the poster who wondered why PETA does not try to stop animals from eating animals: this is almost to absurd to respond to. However, I will just make the following content. PETA is not just anti-meat, it is anti-cruelty. What other of Hashem's creatures routinely beats, tortures, abuses, starves, and kills for "sport" other creatures? The only one who does all of this is man. Even if most people did not eat meat, PETA would still, unfortunately, have plenty of work to do. Another thing to think about: all of those things that I said that humans do to animals, humans also do to each other. If we don't even respect our fellow humans, how can we be expected to respect the animals that we share this world with?

We are commanded by Hashem to cause no *unnecessary* harm to animals. So, if we are going to be killed by an animal, we may kill it. However, since humans can thrive on a vegetarian diet (and even a vegan, no eggs or dairy, diet) then we can say that it is not *necessary* to eat meat in order to survive (although there may be a medical exception here or there). Therefore, if it is not necessary for us to eat meat to live full and healthy lives, then we can conclude that it is not necessary to slaughter animals for food. If that is the case, then slaughter of any kind could be considered unnessesary harm, and it therefore could be considered cruelty. This, of course, would not apply to the Beit HaMikdash if animal sacrifices are indeed restored - since HaShem has stated the necessity of the sacrifices for all of humanity.

So, please, do not attribute beliefs and philosophies to PETA that it does not espouse.

Please do not mock the work of anti-cruelty organizations by making outrageous statements about stopping eagles from eating meat and saving carrots from pain. Unless you feel that animal abuse and suffering is a good thing that should be encouraged, please don't ridicule those who decide to take compassion on other creatures. (And, by the way, many in the animal welfare and animal rights communities also work to help humans as well, so please don't allege that such people only work for animals and not humans.)

Did you know, by the way, that PETA criticises the slaughter industry on behalf of humans as well? It is an injury with one of the highest injury rates. Workers lose fingers, limbs, and even their lives at a rates higher than in just about any industry.

One more thing - to the poster who accused PETA of underhandedness in filming in the slaughterhouse: Slaughterhouses in the US are extremely closed facilities. It wasn't always so. Back in the early part of the 20th century many used to be open for tours. As the public grew more uneasy with what they saw at the plants, the plants became more closed and innaccesible. Today, it is extremely difficult for even a journalist do do an investigative piece on the slaughter industry. Think about it: we often see films of canning plants, manufacturing plants of all kinds, bottling plants, but rarely if ever do we see footage from slaughterhouses.

(38)
Shawn,
December 28, 2004 12:00 AM

What you didn't mention Rabbi Shafran...

What you didn't mention, Rav Shafran, is that the process of what you termed the "manipulation" of the trachea of the animals, was outlawed by the the OU as an inhumane practice...when I read your response article, that portion, especially, seemed to be particulalry vague.

I am especially heartened by the number of people who have responded stateing that animals need humane treatment. Though you mention this, Rav, it seems cursory, which has been the problem.

This is the first ever article I've reposnded to, because this issue is so important to me. Human life is most holy, however, that does not give us carte blanche to treat animals poorly.

Many people have written on this site very articulately and presented their points with clarity with both biased, and non-biased, presentation.

Though I'm not a member of PETA, and though I think the organization's practices are sometimes extreme, sometimes it takes these practices to shed light on things. If this video had not been made, there would have been no discussion at all.

Its precisely this discussion that raises awareness...

On a final note, people nowadays are able to distance themselves from the bloody process of killing an eating meat because it arrives in plastic wrap in a freezer. I think people need to know exacly what their acts of eating meat must cause.

Thank you.

(37)
Judy Snyder,
December 28, 2004 12:00 AM

PETA wants it both ways

I don't know about PETA in Israel but here in America PETA protested and won the right to take animals away from a animal testing company and then had the
animals
"put to sleep", "to keep the animals from
suffering". I wonder how many PETA members
wear leather shoe or have leather
seats in their BMWs.

(36)
anonymous,
December 28, 2004 12:00 AM

What should we do of the horrible way Lions kill Their Prey :(

PETA really hope to abolish the practice of eating animals to begin with. I'm sure amongst their members are included those that believe in bestiality, after all "we're all mammals". What shall we do of the way Lions devour zebras and all sorts of their prey in Africa. Would PETA recommend PETA police to keep lions away - or are only PEOPLE to be restricted as possible regarding our sustenance.

(35)
Zev,
December 28, 2004 12:00 AM

what about treating animals while they are alive?

Very well balanced article. Yes, PETA does seem to exaggerate facts to aid their cause. What I am curious about is why there is no attention to how chickens and livestock are treated before they are killed. I think that if the Jewish tradition holds that we should not cause uneccessary pain to animals, let's start with how they are treated before slaughter.

(34)
Harold Zvi Slutzkin,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

I feel your article on shechita missed the point

The whole problem at the Iowa plant was due to the use of the outdated Weinberg pen for restraining the animals. The A.S.P.C.A. "standup" pen has for many years been in use at slaughterhouses such as Allen Bros. in Elizabeth N.J.This obviates any manhandling of the beast until dead,approved of by a teshuva of Rav Sorotzkin many years ago,used by all forward thinking authorities to forstall such adverse albeit uninformed criticism occasionally arises.

(33)
Gerald M. Pergament,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

Hooray!

Finally, a true answer to those ignorant PET people. What they know about Kahshrit you can put on the pointed end of a pin!

(32)
C. S.,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

There is still a shechita issue

If what the PETA video showed is true, even in "some" instances, and there is no proof that it's not true, then immediate change is required at the shechita to eliminate conscious animals after shechita and to eliminate ripping out the trachea by force, which rips out the "sirchas" on the lung - not allowing for it to be checked properly. It is very interesting that when Dr. Levinger was at the plant he only witnessed 150 animals over the course of 2 days, when the plant generally does 400 animals a day. What happened to the other 650 animals that should've been shechted over those 2 days? Why was the production slowed down when other people were there? Was there something to hide? This requires greater investigation having absolutely nothing to do with PETA and everything to do with the Orthodox view on Shechita.

(31)
Brian Kresge,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

Intellectual Dishonesty

What purpose does this article serve, if not to obfuscate what PETA has actually taken issue with? I am and was moderately impartial with regards to this issue, but to compare PETA with Nazis is utterly disgusting, when they are not attacking slaughter, just the integrity of both AgriProducts and the Orthodox Union. I believe the OU has done a good job of rectifying what was clearly faulty slaughter techniques. "These are things we have seen with our own eyes," many of us can say after having viewed PETAs video. PETA seems to be content with shechita and praises it as the most humane means of killing an animal.
At any rate, it seems that better diplomacy, rather than circling the wagons, could have spared follow-on actions of PETA. By offering corrective actions but not admitting problems, integrity is only naturally going to be questioned. A lot of volume processing arguments are made, but I'm not sure I've seen poskim on shechita volumes, at least not in the detail I've seen for kitinyot or chametz counts.
I don't like to second-guess a learned and esteemed Rav by any means. Some members of PETA might have crazy ideas, but whatever language they use, they want to improve conditions for animals, not subjugate Jews. Let's not stoop to the "Holocaust on a plate" level by going to the Shoah well on this one. Correct, improve, and move on! If we're doing things right, the USDA has nothing to say.

(30)
Shlomo Winegarten - SHECHITA UK,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

If there are failures - they should be corrected

Shechita UK termed what was depicted in the PETA video as "unacceptable". We were not prepared to criticise the shechita upon the evidence presented, because the film was so poor in quality and provenance as to render a more detailed comment impossible. With due respect to my old friend Harold Slutzkin, there is nothing wrong with the casting pen per se; the faults lie with the poor abattoir procedures and management. When commercial pressures impinge on operatives, they - and their procedures - begin to fail. In the UK, and in accordance with strict Halacha, those responsible for the practice of Shechita are salaried and not paid on a piece-work basis; they have the power to slow or stop the "line" in the intersts of animal and indeed human welfare. Shechita is not "ritual slaughter". Ritual slaughter is an anathema to Jews. Shechita is the Jewish religious and humane method of slaughter of only permitted animals for food, and in concert with all the other precepts of avoiding suffering to animals, Shochetim must be protected in the workplace so that they are not forced to compromise their responsibilities.
Given that the AgriProcessors management have accepted that the incidents of poor practice were indeed filmed at their plant, it ill-behooves us to rush to defend the indefensible. There are technical details of the shechita procedure which in these few cases have apparently been missed, but these are not issues pertinent to this forum. What is important to note and applaud is that where poor practice occurs, steps are taken to rectify matters so that Shechita mainatins the highest standards of humane treatment of animals in accordance with Jewish law - the most original and far-reaching animal-welfare legislation promulgated.

(29)
Anna,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

What an insult !

How DARE Ms Newkirk equate chickens with the Holocaust ? Obviously we have a duty to prevent suffering in even the tiniest animal, but the comparison she makes is an affront to decency. I'd like to show her the History teacher at my high school in New Zealand whose hands and feet were barely recognisable, whose hair was snow white and had been ever since anyone had known him (this was the 70s) and who looked like an old, old man although he was not even retiring age. His hands and feet had had the nails ripped out and were then pulverised by a rifle butt. Find me a chicken who has had anything like that happen to it. Mr K was 'lucky' that he survived Auschwitz; nobody else in his family did.

May she be forgiven for her ignorance and stupidity.

Cruelty to animals is NEVER acceptable, but to compare a chicken slaughterhouse with The Holocaust is such a gross insult that there are no words to describe it.

(28)
Benjamin Goldsmith,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

PETA's Response

A response to Rabbi Avi Shafran’s “The PETA Principle”
by Benjamin Goldsmith, PETA
In his recent article titled “The PETA Principle,” Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs for Agudath Israel, offers his thoughts on PETA’s campaign for improved animal welfare standards at AgriProcessors. We appreciate Rabbi Shafran’s clear concern for animal welfare and would like to address the issues he raises.

In the wake of the slaughterhouse scandal, AgriProcessors has not been able to find a single scientist, animal welfare expert, or veterinarian who is willing to defend the shoddy slaughter practices we documented.

PETA, on the other hand, has received an outpouring of support from leaders in the veterinary, animal welfare, and even meat industries, as well as in the Jewish community, who were shocked by the brazenly cruel treatment of animals that has, for years, been the norm at AgriProcessors.

Dr. Temple Grandin, consultant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Meat Institute, did not mince words after viewing the tapes, stating, “I thought it was the most disgusting thing I’d ever seen.” Dr. Lester Friedlander, a former USDA kosher slaughter inspector, echoed these sentiments, writing, “The footage captured by PETA represents the most egregious violation of the USDA Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) I have ever witnessed.”

Our investigator witnessed the slaughter of 278 cattle; one-fourth were clearly and inarguably (according to scientists) still conscious after they were dumped onto the concrete floor, roughly a minute after shechita. Contrary to what one would hope and expect, for the past ten years, there have not been USDA inspectors assigned to the kill floor of any slaughterhouses. Thus, there were none there during the five hours that our investigator was present, on six occasions over the course of about seven weeks.

Three weeks after our investigation was made public, AgriProcessors killed animals properly for Dr. Levinger. Of course, this is encouraging, but it actually validates our position, proving that AgriProcessors could have slaughtered animals humanely all along but choose not to. We guarantee that of the 150 animals Dr. Levinger watched slaughtered, not one stood up or showed the other signs of consciousness that we documented in one-fourth of animals slaughtered.

AgriProcessors’ recent willingness to invite government inspectors to its plant is like a serial killer calling the police over to his house to watch him not kill people: “See, I'm not killing anyone.” Criminals may sometimes act in accordance with the law, but that does not exonerate them for their crimes. That things are so different from what we documented shows that even AgriProcessors understands that their previous actions were unacceptable.

The animal welfare community is not asking much of AgriProcessors; we are only requesting that they adopt the widely-accepted regulatory standards for religious slaughter developed by the Food Marketing Institute. These guidelines, which can be read at GoVeg.com or FMI.org, will ensure that AgriProcessors’ handling and slaughter practices are in keeping with Judaism’s inherent and laudable commitment to kindness and respect for animals.

Striking animals in the face with electric prods, ripping their tracheas and esophagi out while they’re fully conscious, slaughtering them in a haphazard way—these things were happening at AgriProcessors, in what can only be seen as a complete denial of Judaism’s firm commitment to compassion. All Jews will surely agree that the standards that PETA, along with the Rabbinic Assembly of the Conservative movement and a swelling number of Jews from across the spectrum of Judaism, recommends will ensure that kosher slaughter is consistently quick and humane, as provided for in the Torah.

No one can deny that, physiologically, “where pain is concerned, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” This does not mean that all animals are morally equivalent; it simply conveys that God designed us out of flesh, blood, bone, and he endowed us with the same capacity to feel pain. No scientist will deny this, because it’s true. And watching as they struggle to stand and flee while their windpipes hang from their bloody throats, one cannot deny that the animals at AgriProcessors felt immeasurable agony and terror as they fought against death.

Indeed, our respect for the uniquely human ability to make complex moral calculations is central to our mission at PETA. As human beings, we have an obligation to make compassionate choices when possible. As Rabbi Shafran notes, for many, this calculation leads them to vegetarianism. For all, however, it should lead to profound moral outrage at the horrific and consistent cruelty to animals perpetrated by AgriProcessors for so many years.

In closing, please consider that PETA has never been duplicitous; you may disagree with where we stand, but we have never exaggerated and we never would exaggerate. In addition to hurting our credibility, something we would not jeopardize, we have supplied our video and all relevant documentation and factual support to three government agencies. Any exaggeration on our part would be criminal in nature and would subject us to forfeiture of our nonprofit status and thus would, most likely, lead to our demise. As the world’s largest animal rights organization, with more than 800,000 members and supporters and a 25-year history, this is not something we would ever do.

After reviewing the video documentation and reading additional expert and rabbinical testimony, readers will surely agree with Rabbi Barry Schwartz of the Central Conference of American Rabbis’ Task Force on Kashrut, who said, “The suffering of these animals during slaughter is sickening. Death is neither quick nor merciful. If this is kosher, then we have a big problem.”

Benjamin Goldsmith is a campaign coordinator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

(27)
Gavin Krawchuk,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

Comments on Shechita

I am Jewish and vegetarian. Vegetarian not because I equate animals on a human level, but rather I CHOOSE not to eat meat on a a moral ground of environmetal principles and the stress that a meat eating diet puts on the planet that we inhabit as well as the humane argument of respecting all living creatures.

I have a question relating to Jewish Law which says that 'Jewish faith expressly permits the killing of animals for human needs, including food.' The issue that I have is that we do not NEED to eat meat to survive. This is a fact and cannot be argued with. We can get more than enough vitamins, minerals and nutrition from the abundance of fruits vegetables, nuts and grains that Hashem creates for us everyday. The simple fact that it requires about one tenth of the energy and resource to produce one kilo of vegetables versus one kilo of meat should be a moral choice for people to make when our planet is under such strain and millions of people are starving everyday.The mere fact that many people cannot or do not want to know or see how their meat lands up on the dinner table shows that they do not want to have to make that choice. They put the taste of brisket on rye or roast chicken above the respect of the animal. We are superior to animals and have dominion over them and that privlage should not be exploited in such an unneccesary way. So while Jewish law say's eating meat is permitted if needed.. this does not mean it is required. And the fact that we do not need to eat meat to survive should mean that only if we are in a pure survival situation, then we are permitted to eat meat. Not because we feel like roast chicken or beef for dinner.

Thanking you

Gavin Krawchuk

(26)
Yosef Hakohen,
December 27, 2004 12:00 AM

We have a right to challenge Peta!

Jews are less than 3% of the American population, and the majority of meat sold in America is nonkosher meat. Peta itself admits that conditions at nonkosher slaughterhouses are often terrible. The fact that their publicized video did not include a nonkosher slaugherhouse has caused concern that certain animal rights activists may attempt to make the Jews the scapegoat for the problems which exist in the modern meat industry. I am a Torah-committed Jew who would like to see conditions at factory farms improved, but I also believe that Jews have the right to question some of the beliefs, motives and tactics of Peta leaders. I myself am engaged in a respectful and private dialogue with a Peta leader regarding our concerns. Rabbi Shafran therefore has the right to challenge Peta, especially when Peta has shown such gross insensitivity to our people by comparing the killing of animals for food to the Holocaust - a government sponsored genocide which sought to destroy every Jewish man, woman, and child in the world. In fact, even if a person had one Jewish grandparent, he was murdered. In addition, synagogues were destroyed, Jewish books were burned, and music composed by Jews was not allowed to be played.

Peta's greatest insensitivity was the placing of photographs of the bodies of our loved ones who perished in the Holocaust next to the photographs of dead animals! Some Peta supporters may ask, "Why was this insensitive?" The reason is because all human beings should show respect for the feelings, traditions, and sensitivites of other ethnic or religious groups, especially with regard to their feelings about their departed ones. One does not have to be a theologian or a sociologist to realize that within cultures which were influenced by the Torah, human life is considered to be a higher form of life than animal life, for human beings are created in the Divine image with the potential to emulate the Divine love, compassion, and justice for all creation. For example, if a Muslim died, and you would take a picture of his body and place it next to the picture of a pig, his loved ones would be hurt, shocked, and horrified..

Knowing the traditions and sensitivites mentioned above, Peta still coldly chose to place pictures of the bodies of human beings who perished in the Holocaust next to the bodies of dead animals. This caused much pain and anguish to many people, especially to many families of those who perished. It is hard to imagine how Peta could not realize how many people would feel when the bodies of the murdered members of their families are placed next to dead animals.

Yes, Rabbi Shafran was correct in challenging Peta, and perhaps through these challenges, they will try to be more fair and sensitive in the future.

(25)
raye,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

PETA- a nonethical group

I call PETA a "group", not an "organization" because it is not very well organized. It gets Media attention like any other fringe group. Perhaps I shouldn't be so adamant being a vegetarian myself, but for health reasons, however. I hav met PETA people in Florida who have an ax to grind against fur manufacturers. But to be so sneaky as to photograph ritual slaughter undercover, is a demonstration of motives not so pure.

(24)
Alizah HOchstead,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Kosher Slaughter

I personally would question if Peta had doctored the video to prove their point. They care more abt animals than they do abt people and I am not sure that they really care abt animals

(23)
Anonymous,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

while kosher slaughter is a lot more humane than other kinds of slaughter, it still is killing an animal. I agree that PETA's methods are over the top most of the time, but their basic message of respect for all animals is basically in tune with the jewish prohibition of causing animals unnecessary harm. I am a vegetarian and I believe that although PETA's message is a bit exagerated, in the end they are doing good work to prevent unecessary animal testing and other forms of animal cruelty. The jewish method of slaughter is definitely more humane than the secular methods used. That said, I feel we can become better people by respecting all forms of life and not eating meat. Incidentally, it was not Ingrid Newkirk who coined the expression "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". That quote is a couple decades old.

(22)
Anonymous,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Excellent response, Rabbi Shafran!

When it comes to trapping, maiming and killing fur animals for their pelts, I have always agreed with PETA (even if their methods were a bit sensational).

When it comes to kashrut, however, PETA's motives are dubious at best and, as the Rabbi points out, ultimately dangerous for religious freedom in the US: first for Jews, next, perhaps, for Muslims and others. Jewish (and hopefully other religious) groups should vigorously expose this campaign, and PETA's truth-in-reporting (video editing) should be independently examined.

(21)
Ernest,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Halal slaughter

Acutally it looks like now there are more muslims in the USA than jews.
Muslims do slaugther Halal - Shechita-like too.
Where Halal meat is not available, muslims most likely buy kosher meat/poultry, while jews will almost never eat halal meat/poultry (this has to do more with pre/post slaughter rabinical supperision).
How come PETA didn't also go undercover to a Halal slaughtherhouse?
and why go undercover to a Kosher slaughterhouse in the 1st place?

(20)
Tzvi,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Thank you Rabbi Shafran

I am a shochet,and I really apreciate your article

(19)
Pamela,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Please no more of this!

I usually enjoy reading your articles, but this article is just plain awful. It has upset me terribly! I do not want to read about animals standing upright after the act of shechita.I come to this web site for spiritual enlightment.I do agree that PETA is a bit over the top, However, I feel that we can only be better people by respecting all forms of life. I am not just a Vegetarian but a complete Vegan. I choose not to eat any type of animal product and I turn away from articles that are going to cause me pain!This is such a beautiful web site, please no more of this! The one thing that upsets me more that unecessary pain to animals is some idiot to compare animal pain to what the Jewish people suffered during the Holicaust.This is why people turn off to PETA. How could they say such a thing! In a nutshell, if it must be done, then please be humane about it and keep the details off of my favorite web site. Thank you.

(18)
Jeff Marder,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

letter to the editor (Jewish Journal) on the controversy

From this week's issue:
=======================================
The real story behind the Agriprocessors kosher slaughter PETA video is the tale of two Orthodox Jewish organizations and two distinctive worldviews. Agudath Israel and its lawyer, Nathan Lewin, clearly viewed the PETA project as an assault motivated by anti-Semitism, while the Orthodox Union and its principled leader, Rabbi Zvi Hersh Weinreb, asserted that “The Orthodox Union will not engage in maligning PETA in any way, nor in questioning their motives.” He then announced that he would ask Agriprocessors to “stop letting workers tear the trachea and esophagus out of animals” (following shechita). He is further quoted to have said that he found the procedure especially inhumane.

The OU required these changes even though it was possible to argue that the shechita had been performed in accordance with the letter of the halachic strictures. Weinreb, however, understood that if, as Jews, we were to continue to claim that kosher slaughter adheres to the most humane standards, then rabbinic decisions regarding shechita must reflect the highest ethical and humane ideals. In this swift and unapologetic way, Weinreb transformed what could very well have degenerated into a damaging chilul Hashem (desecration) into a Kiddush Hashem (a sanctification of God’s name and of the halachic process).

Hats off to you Rabbi Weinreb for your courageous decision,

Rabbi Chaim and Doreen Seidler-Feller
Westwood

(17)
Maida Genser,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Do not dismiss the shechita controversy

As far as I can tell PETA's primary concern is the most humane conditions for animals, which should also be the primary concern of shechita. Jews have often been their own worst enemies and I think this is the case here. By continuing to defend what happened in the Postville meat-processing plant in Iowa, you are doing more damage to our image than anything PETA might inadvertently do. I am sure that PETA has absolutely no interest in provoking anti-semitism. They only want to have Jews react to flaws in what is supposed to be a better system.

(16)
Danny Friedmann,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Judaism and vegetarianism: a natural match

First of all I think it’s great Aish gives attention to vegetarianism. The story of Rabbi Avi Shafran is however one-sided. He’s complaining about PETA, but is not showing a single jewish source that sheds light on the question whether it is ethical or not to eat meat.

Animals are not the same as humans. Unlike animals, humans have a choice to behave compassionately. Judaism learns humans, that we practice compassion to everything alive.

People of PETA don’t say that animals are equals to humans. On the contrary. Animals are the weakest beings of the creation that need our protection. What PETA says is that animals equal humans in their ability to suffer (like Jeremy Bentham said before).

The fact that at least one animal was found conscious after ritual slaughter makes this way of slaughtering unacceptable. We must thank PETA for exposing this fact.

In Denmark, animals that are going to be ritually slaughtered at least are anaesthetized first, so they don’t suffer a slow death.

To let animals suffer during their life, which is unquestionably the case with industrial farmed animals, is unjewish. This means that eating industrial farmed animals (even if they are qualified as kashrut kosher) are not kosher in an broader ethical sense.

There is an alternative that is both ethical and healthy: becoming a vegetarian. In the Talmud, Pesachim 109a, we find that since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jews are not required to eat meat in order to rejoice on festivals.

(source: http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz).

Vegetarianism is ethical from a Jewish perspective because among other things:

Industrial farming is not only uncompassionate towards animals but it’s also very inefficient (you need 4-10 kilos of plants to ‘produce’ 1 kilo meat). This means that you need a lot of (non-existing) farmlands for growing crops to feed animals instead of people who stay hungry;

Meat production produces a lot of ammoniac, it needs a lot of water and energy for transports. All very bad for the environment and anti-tikkun olam;

Meat is proofed to cause cancer because of the high level of saturated fats. Meat is unhealthy toot because it stays too long in your digestive system: starts rotting and toxic matter will enter your body.

Judaism has been the motor to the emancipation movement. Thanks to Judaism females and people of colors have become rights. It’s time animals get rights to live a natural live too.

(15)
Debra Monasch,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Shechita - Kosher or Not?

The fact that the USDA complies with federal standards is hardly a seal of approval. The USDA permits rodent pellets in loaves of bread! It also permits a ratio of rat hairs. Is that acceptable? I hardly think USDA standards are the measure of what is appropriate and healthy.

The surreptitious video taping? We all know they're used and necessary in our lives. How else to expose injustices? Synagogues have cameras stationed in such a way as to record acts of anti-Semitism. Mothers use them to document how a nanny is treating their child. No, I am not equating human life with animal life, I am offering an example of how taping is often used in our modern world. Would we have objected to video taping, had it been available, when the Nazis created slaughter houses for Jews?

While I don't usually agree with PETA, what the plant did was not wrong. Look no further than a woman named Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science. She designed highly complex cattle moving machinery used all over the world and adopted by Rabbayim the world over. It is precisely because she concluded upright restraint is calmer and less cruel to the animal that her theories have been adopted and implemented. Her machinery results in rapid bleed out time that conforms to the Biblical princliple, "Be sure that you eat not of the blood for the blood is life. (Devarim 12:23.)
Let us not defend misdeeds. Let us learn from them. Excuses are not the Jewish way of life; learning is the Jewish way of life!

(14)
UCHE,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

About article

PETA must realize that shechita is a commandment G-d has given to us to observe. Even if they did record some animals still conscious it does not mean that the meat processing plant should be shut down. PETA needs to keep their focus on fur making and animal testing. I find it so ridiculous that because they witnessed a couple of consciuos cows, they are comparing the Holocaust with eating meat. This is absurd!!

(13)
Alex,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Can we not improve?

Although I agree that PETA is overall a silly group and has questionable motives, I wonder if the processing plant can work to improve its procedures. As most businesses can.
These days, too much is about money, and not about being a person.

(12)
Menachem Bahir,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

before the Flood

Kindness to animals is a most praiseworthy and respectable Halacha. The Torah is not just a book to read but the word of HaShem. Maybe PETA should read the Torah sometime, especial some of the comments on why the flood took place. I personnally am not a great Torah student, however, I do remember reading about how people were placeing animals on the same level as human, in fact some people placed animals about people. This ofcourse whould be against HaShem's Law against mixing creation.
As the saying goes, "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
I would also like to know why a Jewish and not Muslim slaughterhouse was choosen? Don't be fooled, Europe and America are on the road to a Shoah. What we are seeing is a message from HaShem to leave these places and go home. Maybe you have heard of our home, For those who have forgotten it is called Eretz Yisrael.
Shalom
Menachem Bahir

(11)
Irving Salzman,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Feedback

Excellent article. Thanks.

(10)
Keith Ironside,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Shechita

I agree with your article completely.

(9)
Tova Saul,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Blind faith in "kosher" shechita

I saw "blood red" when I read this. Sure, there are going to be lots of Orthodox Jews who think, feel, write, to defend any shechita anywhere, no matter what is going on at the slaughterhouse, simply because they are threatened by anyone saying anything against Jewish practices.
Sure, there will be Jews who defend anything going on in Postville by simply pointing out PETA's philospohical problems that are antithetical to Judaism. But that's just a cop-out.
These Jews are also quick to equate any criticism of Jewish slaughterhouses with Nazis outlawing shechita. Another cop-out.
And, sure, anyone inspecting the situation in the wake of this furor will find a more careful slaughter going on.
How can there be any excuse for even one sloppy slaughter? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to cut thru carotid arteries. Fire those inept "shochtim" immediately! Ma ze?
And why is he mentioning humane holding pens being against Jewish law? How in the world can a holding pen be against Jewish law, for Heaven's sake?!
Anyone inspecting there in the near future----the slaughterers will be on their "best behavior".
I would give my life to protect a fellow Jew-------but that won't keep me from calling a spade a spade. Mixing men, animals, and money is never a good thing for animals----Speed and profit are the mens' only concern. In short, we need strict monitoring of what goes on in kosher slaughterhouses, so that this hillul Hashem never happens again. Given my many years of living among Orthodox Jews and seeing their widespread indifference to animals suffering on the street or to worldwide species extinction, why is it so difficult for this rabbi to accept the fact of the travesty of shechita going on in Iowa?
I am disappointed with Aish haTorah for even allowing this cosmetic make-up article to be on their website!

(8)
Rose B,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Great article!

I found this article to be right on target. And anyone who got nauseous ought to think about the horrible deaths of the little single-celled organisms that die when you take antibiotics or use bleach in your laundry. Want the details?

I first learned about PETA about 20 years ago, when, apparently, merely subscribing to Cat Fancy got me on the PETA mailing list. PETA has been a crack-pot group of fanatics who sincerely believe tha animals are morally equal to people. (They aren't th only ones -- the militant women's "rights" groups are also convinced that humans only have value given to them from outside, like pets and beeves. A child can be killed for no better reason than that two adults were too hedonistic to save sex for the one context in which it can be beautiful -- for marriage.) For as long as I've known them, PETA has opposed even the most necessary uses of animals -- and has been negative about the keeping of pets.

PETA is totally inconsistent, and does not care. While members of the radical group, even leaders, like to equate animals with humans, but it is only humans that PETA harasses. PETA will not do anything to stop the slaughter of animals by wild animals. Can anyone remember any campaign to convince cats not to persue and catch rodents, or to get the wolves and bears to eat only tofu-burgers? Who can remember the the last ad campaign aimed as inspiring eagles to go vegetarian.

If there's any group who are more humane than others, it's Jews. Jews are careful not to eat insects, caterpillars, etc with their vegetables.

(7)
Heather W,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

PETA Article

I just wanted to comment on a couple of issues raised in the article. Though I do realize that PETA, in comparison to a lot of other like organizations, is extreme. I am disheartened that many people, such as yourself, misunderstand what the campaigns are for. Most factory farmed animals are slaughtered in horrific ways. It is a public misconception that the USDA is always there and are doing their jobs. The USDA is about as trust worthy as the FDA. Too many people are assuming that these people are doing their jobs and are dying for it, among other things. Due to the common ignorance, many people are dying and suffering from FDA approved drugs, USDA approved foods, etc. In Gail Eisnitz book "Slaughterhouse" a slaughterhouse owner actually admitted to being given a USDA stamp to push through questionable meat. The USDA was not doig it's job in Mabton, Washington. Living up here I have seen video after video of downer animals being taken into the slaughterhouse for human consumption. Furthermore, PETA's agenda is not simply end meat consumption. It is to end suffering. Suffering of animals occurs every single day in the slaughterhouses. That is not acceptable. The only way to get big businesses to change their unethical ways is to boycott them. If meat eaters would just buy from local farms it would make a huge difference in the business practices of slaughterhouse owners. The issues of a common slaughterhouse is not just animal rights, it's environmental impact, immigrant rights, human health, etc. To say that animals are so below a human that they don't deserve dignity and respect is rather unG-dly. Regardless of oppinion on animals, G-d created all of us. As G-d has dominion over us, he put us here second to have dominion over the animals. G-d is not our slaughterer, nor does He use us for whatever seems fit. There are many things that humans do to animals that G-d would never even think to do to us. He doesn't slaugher us, wear us, use us for entertainment, beat us, breed us and sell us. These are mostly actions that slave owners use. Animals are not our slaves. G-d started us out in the Garden of Eden, with plentiful crops and hands to reap and sow. He didn't put us in the Slaughterhouse of Eden. The people who equate themselves with animals are merely making a statement that all G-ds creatures deserve their right to life on this earth. Humans were given this intelligence to take care of the world, not desicrate it with spilled blood and deplete it's resources. I personally do not feel animals are below humans. Intelligence does not determine the level of importance. In that rational, most humans would be lower forms. I completely understand the need for practicing religion freely.However, in certain parts of the world human sacrifices are necessary to practice their religion. Should we allow this? If not why? A reason of them being more than human should shed light on the point here. As far as the "Holocaust On Your Plate" campaign, the images were juxtaposed to show the similarity in them. Not to debate who is better. An act of torture is an act of torture no matter who the act is being committed upon. Not on single being on this earth should have to suffer for our meals, home, clothing or anything. Not the jewlery we wear, nor the food in our bellies. We have a G-d given responsiblity to lessen the amount of suffering that goes on.

(6)
Boris,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Yes, but reality is not so nice

I have been a strict vegetarian (and an observant Jew), for over 14 years and fully disagree with the ideas outlined in this article. While the author does a good job sticking up for Jewish law and the rights of shechita, he does not show much understanding of the reality of eating meat and the danger it poses to ourselves, our environment and to our understanding of what it means to live as compassionate Jews.

As Rabbi Shafran points out, the PETA video was “disturbing,” but then again, it could be argued, so is any video of an animal being slaughtered. Only a rare Jew would happily watch a video of a cow being killed before they eat their meat...even a video more “humane” than the PETA video. I believe very strongly that the reality of meat is so innately disturbing to most people, religious Jews included, that we only continue to eat it because of our distance from what is really happening. We cannot demand connection with everything else in Judaism, connection to G-d, Jewish texts, and other people, and then say Judaism believes in compassion towards animals, but not connection to animals. While we are given the right to eat meat by G-d, we are also given the right to choose.

For the modern meat eater, Jew or non-Jew, their most regular connection to animals is through the animal’s death. When it is more important to worry about how an animal is killed, than how an animal lives, then something terrible has gone wrong. The fact that some rabbis see what happened in the PETA videos is acceptable, and not have an issue with the horrendous lives that the majority of kosher animals live in factory farms, I believe shows how much our values have been skewed. Do we care that over 90% of animals raised for kosher slaughter live their entire lives in pure pain and horror in cages where they can’t move, lay down or even breathe fresh air? Why does the entire life of the animal not matter as much as the few moments of the animal's death? What would happen if the next PETA expose described how a well known Orthodox rabbi came out as saying that it is no longer acceptable to keep cows and chickens confined for their entire lives in dark, cramped metal stalls? What would happen if these same rabbis were disagreeing on how much space and fresh air an animal should have to live a “happy life” instead of whether ripping out an animals organs while it is still alive is “kosher”? In my mind, this is true Tzaar Ba’alei chayim--compassion towards animals--not only making sure that an animals slaughter is done according to ritual.

While the entire argument about Agriprocessors have been focused on the slaughter of the animals, there are other important issues to think about if we are really going to continue to eat meat and also follow Jewish law. As Rabbi Shafran points out, while we are allowed to eat meat it is not necessary for our surivival. In Judaism we are both commanded to care for the environment and care for our personal health, yet the realities of meat consumption are hard to ignore:

-It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of feedlot beef for human consumption.
-Over 70 percent of the grain produced in the United States and over one third of the world’s grain is fed to animals destined for slaughter.
-If Americans reduced their beef consumption by ten percent, it would free up enough grain to feed all of the world’s people who annually die of hunger and related diseases.
-It takes 8 to 12 pounds of grain to produce one pound of edible beef in a feedlot. A meat-centered diet requires about seventeen times the land area per person than would be required for a purely vegetarian diet.
(from Jewishveg.com)

And, while animals are not people, calling true compassion towards them “ethical obscenity” is just as dangerous. There is a connection between compassion towards people and compassion towards animals which cannot be ignored. In my mind, “ruling over” animals means that as humans, we are different than animals. Therefore, we should be able to look at the realities of eating meat, and think about the consequences. As IB Singer writes:

"When a human being kills an animal for food, he is neglecting his own hunger for justice. Man prays for mercy, but is unwilling to extend it to others. Why the should man expect mercy from God? It is unfair to expect something that you are not willing to give."

(5)
Lia,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

What took him 7 weeks

If there were so many animals displaying signs of conciousness after shechita, what why did the PETA "mole" have to work 7 weeks at the plant to get the footage that he wanted? I should have taken him a few days at most.

(4)
Anonymous,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

PETA...friend or foe

I, too, was horrified after viewing part of the video in question. However, the Jewish way of killing the animal is still faster and less painful than in non-kosher slaughter houses. Has PETA checked up on them?

(3)
Anonymous,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

WRONG!!!!!!!

I completly disagree with this article, with all your respect Rabbi Shafran. PETA, made it clear that they support Kosher killing, Agriprocessor's slaughtering of animals IS clearly not a kosher one. In a KOSHER slaughtering animals are NOT to suffer that is what makes the killing kosher. If not what is the difference between the death of the animals slaughtered by Agriprocessor and the death of the animals not slaughtered by Agriprocessor? There have been Rabbis in Israel who clearly objected to the use of the machine that Agriprocessor uses to slaughter animals. So if the meat produced by Agriprocessor is Kosher so are all the rest of the meats out in the market. I take it you have not seen half of the videos of all the suffering animals go through, maybe you ought to see them and I'll guarantee you'll think twice before criticizing PETA. Sometimes we close our eyes and we don't want to face the truth!

(2)
Beverly Kurtin, Ph.D.,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Protecting Everything That's Alive?

Okay, PETA, starve to death. Always remember that carrots were once alive too.

Yeah, I'm being facetious. What of it?

Today, over 11,000 human beings were swept to a watery grave; that disturbs me far more than a cow dying five seconds after slaughter rather than two.

May our gracious God show his grace to those who were taken today.

(1)
Miryom,
December 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Thank you for the explanation, Rabbi

When I first read about the PETA controversy, it made me ill. As I become a more observant Jew, I am in the process of leaving all treif behind and becoming totally kosher. The idea of animals staggering and walking after shechita, hurt me. The thought of someone ripping out an animals trachea made me sick. Though it may be perfectly kosher to do this act, it looks and feels totally inhumane to this Jew. Good for OU for their response! Thank you Rabbi Shafran for making clear what really happened.

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...